Dataset Information

How does medical device regulation perform in the United States and the European union? A systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Policymakers and regulators in the United States (US) and the European Union (EU) are weighing reforms to their medical device approval and post-market surveillance systems. Data may be available that identify strengths and weakness of the approaches to medical device regulation in these settings.

Methods and findings

We performed a systematic review to find empirical studies evaluating medical device regulation in the US or EU. We searched Medline using two nested categories that included medical devices and glossary terms attributable to the US Food and Drug Administration and the EU, following PRISMA guidelines for systematic reviews. We supplemented this search with a review of the US Government Accountability Office online database for reports on US Food and Drug Administration device regulation, consultations with local experts in the field, manual reference mining of selected articles, and Google searches using the same key terms used in the Medline search. We found studies of premarket evaluation and timing (n?=?9), studies of device recalls (n?=?8), and surveys of device manufacturers (n?=?3). These studies provide evidence of quality problems in pre-market submissions in the US, provide conflicting views of device safety based largely on recall data, and relay perceptions of some industry leaders from self-surveys.

Conclusions

Few studies have quantitatively assessed medical device regulation in either the US or EU. Existing studies of US and EU device approval and post-market evaluation performance suggest that policy reforms are necessary for both systems, including improving classification of devices in the US and promoting transparency and post-market oversight in the EU. Assessment of regulatory performance in both settings is limited by lack of data on post-approval safety outcomes. Changes to these device approval and post-marketing systems must be accompanied by ongoing research to ensure that there is better assessment of what works in either setting.

SUBMITTER: Kramer DB

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3418047 | biostudies-literature | 2012

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

How does medical device regulation perform in the United States and the European union? A systematic review.

Kramer Daniel B DB Xu Shuai S Kesselheim Aaron S AS

PLoS medicine 20120731 7

<h4>Background</h4>Policymakers and regulators in the United States (US) and the European Union (EU) are weighing reforms to their medical device approval and post-market surveillance systems. Data may be available that identify strengths and weakness of the approaches to medical device regulation in these settings.<h4>Methods and findings</h4>We performed a systematic review to find empirical studies evaluating medical device regulation in the US or EU. We searched Medline using two nested cate ...[more]

PMID: 22912563

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn the United States, medical devices are regulated and subject to review by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) before they can be marketed. Low-to-medium risk novel medical devices can be reviewed under the De Novo umbrella before they can proceed to market, and this process can be fairly cumbersome, expensive, and time-consuming. An alternate faster and less-expensive pathway to going to market is the 510(k) pathway. In this approach, if the device can be shown to be substantially equivalent in safety and effectiveness to a pre-existing FDA-approved marketed device (or "predicates"), it can be cleared to market. Due to the possibility of daisy-chaining predicate devices, it can very quickly be difficult to unravel the logic and justification of how a particular medical device's equivalence was established. From patients' perspective, this minimizes transparency in the process. From a vendor perspective, it can be difficult to determine the right predicate that applies to their device.MethodsWe map the connectivity of various predicates in the medical device field by applying text mining and natural language processing (NLP) techniques on data publicly made available by the FDA 78000 device summaries were scraped from the US FDA 510(k) database, and a total of 2,721 devices cleared by the 510(k) regulatory pathway in 2020 were used as a specific case study to map the genealogy of medical devices cleared by the FDA. Cosine similarity was used to gauge the degree of substantial equivalence between two medical devices by evaluating their device descriptions and indications for use. Recalls and complaints for predicate devices were extracted from the FDA's Total Product Life Cycle database using html scraping and web page optical character recognition to determine the similarity between class 1 recalled devices (the most severe form of device recall) and other substantially equivalent devices. A specific product code was used to illustrate the mapping of the genealogy from a De Novo device.Results and discussionThe ancestral tree for the medical devices cleared in 2020 is vast and sparse, with a large number of devices having only 1-2 predicates. Evaluation of substantial equivalence data from 2003-2020 shows that the standard for substantial equivalence has not changed significantly. Studying the recalls and complaints, shows that the insulin infusion pump had the highest number of complaints, yet none of the recalled devices bore significant degree of text similarity to currently marketed devices. The mapping from the De Novo device case study was used to develop an ancestry map from the recalled predicate (recalled due to design flaws) to current substantially equivalent products in the market.ConclusionsBesides enabling a better understanding of the risks and benefits of the 510(k) process, mapping of connectivity of various predicates could help increase consumer confidence in the medical devices that are currently in the marketplace.

Project description:Objective To evaluate safety alerts and recalls, publication of key trial outcomes, and subsequent US approval of high profile medical devices introduced in the European Union.Design Cohort study.Setting Novel cardiovascular, orthopedic, and neurologic devices approved in the EU through Conformité Européenne marking between 2005 and 2010.Data sources Public and commercial databases searched up to January 2016 for press releases and announcements of approvals; public Food and Drug Administration and European regulatory authority databases for US approvals and safety alerts and recalls; and Medline, Embase, and Web of Science for peer reviewed publications.Main outcome measures We categorized the novelty of the devices in the study sample as a "major innovation" or an "other change," and extracted descriptive data about the devices and information on any safety alerts and withdrawals. Linear regression models examined factors associated with differential EU and US approvals. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to evaluate factors associated with safety alerts and recalls and the publication of trial outcomes for devices categorized as major innovations. Models controlled for time, therapeutic category, regulatory pathway, size of sponsoring company, and indicator variables for devices approved first in the EU and devices approved only in the EU.Results 67% (206/309) of devices identified were approved in both the US and the EU, of which 63% (129/206) were approved first in the EU. The unadjusted rate of safety alerts and recalls for devices approved first in the EU was 27% (62/232) compared with 14% (11/77) for devices approved first in the US. The adjusted hazard ratio for safety alerts and recalls was 2.9 (95% confidence interval 1.4 to 6.2) for devices approved first in the EU. The results of pivotal trials were published for 49% (37/75) of devices categorized as major innovations, with an overall publication rate of 37% five years after approval.Conclusions Devices approved first in the EU are associated with an increased risk of post-marketing safety alerts and recalls. Poor trial publication rates mean that patients and clinicians need greater regulatory transparency to make informed decisions about treatment.

Dataset Information

How does medical device regulation perform in the United States and the European union? A systematic review.

Background

Methods and findings

Conclusions

Publications

How does medical device regulation perform in the United States and the European union? A systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets